Eu: In or out?

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should be stay a member or leave?
    Stay
    58.13%
    Leave
    41.87%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I say leave
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In, reluctantly.

    Can't stand people saying immigration is a problem - it's not. It lets New Labour and the Tories off the hook for running the economy and the welfare state into the ground. I'm white, British and live in Inner London. If it affected anyone, it would be me. It doesn't. Very funny man on Question Time this week said immigrants don't go to Islington and that they instead go to Walsall - hilarious. On the other hand, I genuinely don't think that everyone who is worried about immigration is racist because that would be dumb.

    The EU is an instrument of the ruling class and generally works against the interests of working people but I fear that UKIP would surge if we left and take 40 seats off Labour and Johnson would be our PM. It is undemocratic and unreformable but I think it's marginally less awful than the alternative because it's the only thing doing anything about climate change and the like. Our voting system is a bigger threat to democracy.

    'Lesser evil' arguments won't persuade anyone but it's my honest view.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    All of you outraged and disgusted by the tory election Fraud.. remember to follow Daves orders again and vote Remain! Yayy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conor_muller)
    In, reluctantly.

    Can't stand people saying immigration is a problem - it's not. It lets New Labour and the Tories off the hook for running the economy and the welfare state into the ground. I'm white, British and live in Inner London. If it affected anyone, it would be me. It doesn't. Very funny man on Question Time this week said immigrants don't go to Islington and that they instead go to Walsall - hilarious. On the other hand, I genuinely don't think that everyone who is worried about immigration is racist because that would be dumb.

    The EU is an instrument of the ruling class and generally works against the interests of working people but I fear that UKIP would surge if we left and take 40 seats off Labour and Johnson would be our PM. It is undemocratic and unreformable but I think it's marginally less awful than the alternative because it's the only thing doing anything about climate change and the like. Our voting system is a bigger threat to democracy.

    'Lesser evil' arguments won't persuade anyone but it's my honest view.
    Theres a rarity, an honest and well reasoned remain voter. Not many about

    Do you agree that huge numbers coming into the country are a massive burden on our shared public resources like the NHS and School places? Do you agree that it pushes house prices sky high? (Remember consecutive governements WILL NOT BUILD MILLIONS OF HOUSES)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage, etc.

    The hard-right Tory politicians, essentially, that want to bring back hanging, privatise the NHS, abolish the BBC, revoke same-sex marriage, invest in fossil fuels, scrap maternity leave and sick pay, curb the trade unions and impose their ideological regime of ruthless cuts and prejudiced cruelty on our cherished country.

    Behind the pantomime and charades of other arguments, the sole conviction of these MPs against the European Union is that it has singlehandedly prevented them from unleashing their hard-right Tory agenda on Britain through its burdensome "regulations" - not on business, but on politics. These Eurosceptic MPs have beef with the European Union and they want to leave it because it would enable them to inflict their hard-right agenda on our country.

    A 'Leave' vote is a mandate for these politicians to take over British politics and impose said agenda. Therefore, Brexit is one step closer towards Tory authoritarian rule.
    This is much like how many of the businesses supporting Brexit do so because they've been sued by the EU in the past for failing environmental regulations actually making their products safe for use. These businesses want to leave so that they can get their revenge on the EU that has protected us from unsafe, dangerous household products.
    How can you even make such an argument with plenty of insdious creatures on the remain side not least tory leader Camoron ? Do you not see how silly and illogical this is?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Theres a rarity, an honest and well reasoned remain voter. Not many about

    Do you agree that huge numbers coming into the country are a massive burden on our shared public resources like the NHS and School places? Do you agree that it pushes house prices sky high? (Remember consecutive governements WILL NOT BUILD MILLIONS OF HOUSES)

    Of course, it would be beyond dumb to say that increased numbers of people through migration don't put pressure on public services.

    But all the studies show that immigrants make a net contribution to fund those public services so it's clear the strain isn't coming from them. They're increasing demand but they're also providing the money to expand public services.

    In health for example, the strain has come from New Labour's crippling PFI debt on hospitals and the Tories' toxic Health and Social Care Act 2012 which openly privatises the whole thing.

    I'm glad you think I'm well-reasoned. For what it's worth, I think the remain campaign has been a boring episode of fearmongering that has failed to portray the "benefits" of the EU and has succeeded only in ****ging off the economics of Brexit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    How can you even make such an argument with plenty of insdious creatures on the remain side not least tory leader Camoron ? Do you not see how silly and illogical this is?
    I don't like Cameron either, but at least working and living conditions are somewhat protected by the European Union - and the moment we leave, they would be threatened by the Brexiteer camps in the Tories.

    I don't agree with his moderate and non-radical view on the EU either and I want him to go further so that we can work towards a federal, liberal, fully-democratic, maximum-devolved United States of Europe - but to turn this referendum into a referendum on Cameron's government to say "Cameron says this - so we'll do the opposite" does no service to showing the huge ramifications that leaving the European Union would have.

    It's also quite silly and immature in my opinion - like when we rejected AV to spite the Liberal Democrats in 2011, only to begin complaining about unfair election results four years later.

    And anyway, Cameron's politics might be bad - and I haven't forgotten the election fraud, don't worry. But they're nowhere near as bad as those of the aforementioned hard-right Tory MPs, who have been kept in-check through the European Union.

    There are plenty of honest politicians backing Remain anyway - including Lib Dem, Labour, Green, SNP and moderatre Tory politicians. Having David Cameron amongst their ranks don't mean that the 'Remain camp' is awful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    like when we rejected AV to spite the Liberal Democrats in 2011
    Tbf, AV was a rubbish idea and wasn't really proportional representation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conor_muller)
    Of course, it would be beyond dumb to say that increased numbers of people through migration don't put pressure on public services.

    But all the studies show that immigrants make a net contribution to fund those public services so it's clear the strain isn't coming from them. They're increasing demand but they're also providing the money to expand public services.

    In health for example, the strain has come from New Labour's crippling PFI debt on hospitals and the Tories' toxic Health and Social Care Act 2012 which openly privatises the whole thing.

    I'm glad you think I'm well-reasoned. For what it's worth, I think the remain campaign has been a boring episode of fearmongering that has failed to portray the "benefits" of the EU and has succeeded only in ****ging off the economics of Brexit.
    I think the net contribution could be so much better if there was not such a large base of net negative immigrants working unskilled jobs. However move that aside for the time being, our politicans will not build enough houses (Be it Labour, tories, proweedpeople) because its in their interests to keep house prices artificially high.

    They boast about building 100,000 houses in a year like they have just built the great wall of China and we are seeing 340,000 net migration yearly. The people of this country are heading for a world of pain and they have a rare chance to lessen that pain a little
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conor_muller)
    Tbf, AV was a rubbish idea and wasn't really proportional representation.
    Oh, absolutely.

    The original idea was for the referendum to propose STV with multi-member constituencies - which is by far the most appropriate system for a democracy like the UK - but unfortunately, although this was the initial proposal by the Liberal Democrats, the Tories amended it and it came to be on AV.

    In hindsight, this move was quite smart on the Tories' side: the Electoral Reform Society rejected the referendum because it wasn't proportional representation, and therefore joined the majority of the electorate in asking voters to spite the Liberal Democrats through rejecting AV. Shame on the ERS though: the referendum was an opportunity for a step towards change - with AV at least being arguably somewhat better than FPTP through ensuring some kind of majority agreement.

    According to that report by the Electoral Reform Society, AV would have only narrowly changed the composition of the House of Commons anyway. I wonder, however, whether their calculation of this considers how AV might have reduced the perceived instability of the winner in the weeks before the election, and therefore might have led to a stronger result either towards the Tories or towards Labour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    such a large base of net negative immigrants working unskilled jobs.
    It does exist but it's small. Migrants don't earn much so there would have to be a large group of migrant billionaires to cancel out any supposed net takers. A large majority put in far more than they take out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by conor_muller)
    It does exist but it's small. Migrants don't earn much so there would have to be a large group of migrant billionaires to cancel out any supposed net takers. A large majority put in far more than they take out.
    But why not just have immigration of vast majority large net contributors?

    I see a world where instead of 350k net migration, it is 50,000 highly skilled tax paying migrants from around the globe, not eastern europe. With the large contrasting difference between financial side of the two... we could perhaps give asylum to 75,000 Syrian children.

    That seems like a much better UK than the one we have now
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IN. I'm in year 11, so i cant vote, but apart from being worried about immigration, there is no other reason to vote leave. Hence, the benefits of remaining outweigh the risks of leaving.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I think the net contribution could be so much better if there was not such a large base of net negative immigrants working unskilled jobs.
    I'm glad that you, like me, believe that the immigrants in this country ought to be skilled and working well.

    The facts, however, portray an interesting story: EU immigrants are better-skilled and better-educated than UK natives - despite the objections of the right-wing media.

    Firstly, EU immigrants in the UK are better-skilled and better-educated than UK natives. According to one study, 24% of the UK's native workforce has a university degree. By contrast, the same study noted 64% of Western EU immigrants and 25% of Eastern EU immigrants in the UK workforce have a comparable university degree - meaning that the UK's native workforce is by far less skilled and less educated than that of EU immigrants working in the UK.

    Meanwhile, EU immigrants constitute 20% of the UK's academic community and have saved over a billion pounds in the education budget: because they've been educated abroad, our schools haven't had to educate them ourselves, and this means lowered costs to the UK taxpayers.

    Secondly, EU immigrants are less likely to claim benefits in the UK than UK natives. There are about 131,000 EU immigrants in the UK on benefits - comparable to the population of Dundee; in the grand scheme of things, this is a negligible minority of the entire UK population (no offence to Dundee - I do promise that I love you!). Meanwhile, there are about twice as many non-EU immigrants in the UK on benefits, and EU immigrants in the UK are 49% less likely to claim benefits and 7% less likely to claim social housing than UK natives.

    Clearly, the statistics and facts from studies show that EU immigrants are better skilled and better educated than UK natives - and therefore it's not true, like you say, that the net contribution would be greater if they weren't working in "unskilled jobs". In fact, they are working in better skilled jobs than UK natives - and the median salary for EU immigrants is between £26,000 to £27,000, or about £2,000 more than the median salary for UK natives - because EU immigrants in the UK workforce are better educated and better skilled than UK natives.

    In fact, the UK economy benefited to the tune of £20bn from EU immigrants in one decade from 2001 to 2011 - £15bn from Western EU immigrants and £5bn from Eastern EU immigrants (NB: the difference is partially explained by how Eastern EU immigrants only had the freedom of movement after accession in 2004). Meanwhile, UK natives drained the UK of about £700m in the same period of time.

    So, what would happen if the EU were to send all of its international migrants home (and I'm not saying this would happen in the event of Brexit)? Well, firstly, the UK would send about 2.1 million EU immigrants in the UK back home - whilst the EU would send 2 million UK immigrants in the rest of the EU back to the UK as well. In the grand scheme of things, this means that EU immigration is matched (more or less, with a deficit of 100,000) by UK emigration - and therefore that immigration from the EU is not adding considerable additional pressure to our budgets and finances: that pressure would still exist if all UK emigrants in the EU were living in the UK anyway.

    When you consider that most EU immigrants in the UK are young and most UK emigrants in the rest of the EU are pensioners (who have retired to Spain, for example, where there are 1 million Britons alone), it can even be suggested that EU freedom of movement reduces pressure on our budgets - because obviously, it costs our healthcare more to look after a pensioner than it does a young, fit, skilled and educated worker.

    Moreover, assuming that UK emigrants in the EU have comparable skills and education levels to UK natives in the UK workforce, what reinstating everyone back to their country of birth would leave us with is a workforce that is by far less skilled, less educated and with lower wages. Because most EU immigrants in the UK are young and most UK emigrants to the UK are elderly, we would also suffer from frictional unemployment due to an older workforce - a traditional recipe for economic stagnation and an economy which doesn't grow.

    Clearly, the right-wing media is wrong. I'm glad you appreciate the values of having immigrants in the UK that make positive contributions to the UK economy - and in fact, the studies and the facts show that EU immigrants are those kinds of immigrants. This is why immigration from the EU is beneficial to the UK's economy and society, and why we should be quick to see the other side of the story when it is claimed that lower immigration through leaving the European Union would be beneficial for the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Alot of people who are "Leave" only have one reason - "Less immigrants will take the job i do not want to do" Not saying all, however a vast amount have these views.

    Im IN, but each to their own.
    And? It is a good argument from the leave side.

    Only this year million and a half radical muslims settled in Germany. 500,000 of them Germany lost from track and probably moved to other countries like UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    But why not just have immigration of vast majority large net contributors?

    I see a world where instead of 350k net migration, it is 50,000 highly skilled tax paying migrants from around the globe, not eastern europe. With the large contrasting difference between financial side of the two... we could perhaps give asylum to 75,000 Syrian children.

    That seems like a much better UK than the one we have now
    Selective immigration is theoretically-good, but doesn't work. I'll give you a case study from my hometown of London.

    My friend is the descendant of EU immigrants. His well-educated parents both work in sectors that are struggling to find UK natives of decent-enough qualifications to fill the job vacancies within it - such as nursing. The NHS has been accused by South Mediterranean governments of 'violently' campaigning for nurses from those countries to come to the UK because not enough British people want to become nurses given the long training period and the poor pay - so the NHS runs huge campaigns in South Mediterranean countries to encourage nurses from there to immigrate into the UK, and even though they earn less than £35,000, it's still more than their native countries can afford to pay them. Immigrant EU nurses therefore help to alleviate the NHS crisis in the UK.

    When my friend was born, his parents didn't know how to handle the early years childcare. They didn't feel comfortable with delegating the childcare to special minders, especially as they didn't particularly want a second child, nor were they comfortable with leaving him with family friends during his childhood - not that his parents, being EU immigrant city workers, had many family friends they could ask. Rather than moving back to their EU country, where they could actually delegate the role to aunties or my grandparents, my friend's grandparents came over to the UK from their EU country.

    Now, if selective immigration had taken place, they wouldn't have been able to do that. As a result, my friend and his parents would have returned to their EU country of origin - meaning the UK would have lost out of having two skilled workers and my friend wouldn't have grown up in the UK, so he wouldn't have worked in the UK as an adult and then contributed positively himself to the UK economy like his EU immigrant parents. Fortunately, because his grandparents chose to came over, they could all stay in the UK - and although the grandparents don't work and do use the NHS, and although my friend is being educated in a UK school - the net contribution to the UK economy of that family as a whole is positive because of the high-skilled work of their parents, and the fact that all of the family itself needs basic resources (like food and clothes) which in turn increase domestic demand for goods which in turn fuels supply and jobs. By the way, you don't need to have any skills or qualifications to contribute to economic growth through the latter way - you just need some kind of income to keep on buying clothes and goods in your country of residency.

    This is one story to show how selective immigration doesn't work and often backfires. You say 50,000 well-skilled immigrants are better than 300,000 unskilled immigrants - but as you can see, sometimes, you need both kinds of immigrants if there is to be any benefit at all. The moment that you enact selective immigration, you inadvertently discourage a lot of positive immigration to your country - because individuals won't be able to immigrate freely into your country - and you therefore have, in the case of EU immigration, a less skilled and less educated workforce.

    There are various studies which allegedly prove that selective immigration always backfires in this way. I personally haven't seen them, but nor have I seen any other studies arguing the opposite. In my view, however, it's common sense. Yes, we want to encourage positive immigration to the UK - but it's not pragmatic to label every immigrant as 'positive' or 'negative', because when you get rid of some so-called 'negatives', you will always get rid of some 'positives' too who depend on the 'negatives' being there. Immigration should therefore never be judged on individual bases and always on whole bases - and in terms of the EU, that means recognising that EU immigration is on-the-whole positive, and therefore that we should celebrate it and not demean it, as the 'Leave' campaign is doing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Selective immigration is theoretically-good, but doesn't work. I'll give you a case study from my hometown of London.

    My friend is the descendant of EU immigrants. His well-educated parents both work in sectors that are struggling to find UK natives of decent-enough qualifications to fill the job vacancies within it - such as nursing. The NHS has been accused by South Mediterranean governments of 'violently' campaigning for nurses from those countries to come to the UK because not enough British people want to become nurses given the long training period and the poor pay - so the NHS runs huge campaigns in South Mediterranean countries to encourage nurses from there to immigrate into the UK, and even though they earn less than £35,000, it's still more than their native countries can afford to pay them. Immigrant EU nurses therefore help to alleviate the NHS crisis in the UK.

    When my friend was born, his parents didn't know how to handle the early years childcare. They didn't feel comfortable with delegating the childcare to special minders, especially as they didn't particularly want a second child, nor were they comfortable with leaving him with family friends during his childhood - not that his parents, being EU immigrant city workers, had many family friends they could ask. Rather than moving back to their EU country, where they could actually delegate the role to aunties or my grandparents, my friend's grandparents came over to the UK from their EU country.

    Now, if selective immigration had taken place, they wouldn't have been able to do that. As a result, my friend and his parents would have returned to their EU country of origin - meaning the UK would have lost out of having two skilled workers and my friend wouldn't have grown up in the UK, so he wouldn't have worked in the UK as an adult and then contributed positively himself to the UK economy like his EU immigrant parents. Fortunately, because his grandparents chose to came over, they could all stay in the UK - and although the grandparents don't work and do use the NHS, and although my friend is being educated in a UK school - the net contribution to the UK economy of that family as a whole is positive because of the high-skilled work of their parents, and the fact that all of the family itself needs basic resources (like food and clothes) which in turn increase domestic demand for goods which in turn fuels supply and jobs. By the way, you don't need to have any skills or qualifications to contribute to economic growth through the latter way - you just need some kind of income to keep on buying clothes and goods in your country of residency.

    This is one story to show how selective immigration doesn't work and often backfires. You say 50,000 well-skilled immigrants are better than 300,000 unskilled immigrants - but as you can see, sometimes, you need both kinds of immigrants if there is to be any benefit at all. The moment that you enact selective immigration, you inadvertently discourage a lot of positive immigration to your country - because individuals won't be able to immigrate freely into your country - and you therefore have, in the case of EU immigration, a less skilled and less educated workforce.

    There are various studies which allegedly prove that selective immigration always backfires in this way. I personally haven't seen them, but nor have I seen any other studies arguing the opposite. In my view, however, it's common sense. Yes, we want to encourage positive immigration to the UK - but it's not pragmatic to label every immigrant as 'positive' or 'negative', because when you get rid of some so-called 'negatives', you will always get rid of some 'positives' too who depend on the 'negatives' being there. Immigration should therefore never be judged on individual bases and always on whole bases - and in terms of the EU, that means recognising that EU immigration is on-the-whole positive, and therefore that we should celebrate it and not demean it, as the 'Leave' campaign is doing.
    I can see the point this anecdote is making but this is simply the reality for millions of UK people. Juggling their professions around their family life. Forking out expensive child minder / nursery fee's etc.

    I have to wonder just how much of net contribution this family made if you take into account the grandparents
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I can see the point this anecdote is making but this is simply the reality for millions of UK people. Juggling their professions around their family life. Forking out expensive child minder / nursery fee's etc.

    I have to wonder just how much of net contribution this family made if you take into account the grandparents
    The grandparents definitely drag the family down, but the net contribution is undoubtedly positive nonetheless. The parents work at maybe £70k a year; my friend is top-of-the-class and will probably end up working at above and beyond that when he begins working himself, easily paying off the expenses in education soon (our school is voluntary-funded, anyway, so government expenditure is little). Not to forget that they probably brought over a small fortune from the rest of the EU as a middle-class family, and they don't send much money back in remittances (I don't think, at least - they don't have too many ties remaining).

    It is true that this is the reality for millions of UK people - but the difference is that UK people are less likely to be net contributors to the UK economy than EU immigrants, as the period 2001-2011 shows: again, the data registered a £20bn benefit to the UK economy from EU immigrants but a £700m drag on the UK economy from UK natives.

    Selective immigration towards the EU could lower the number of immigrants coming from the EU to the UK - and this would ultimately be damaging to the UK's economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    All of you outraged and disgusted by the tory election Fraud.. remember to follow Daves orders again and vote Remain! Yayy
    You're right. Much better to follow Boris Johnson's orders, it's not like he's an even more unscrupulous ex-Bullingdon club Tory with all the credentials of a power-hungry egomaniac, who presided over the sale of most of central London to Russian and Gulf billionaires as part of their money laundering operations, and who has been criticised even by members of his own party as unreliable, workshy and deceitful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    And? It is a good argument from the leave side.

    Only this year million and a half radical muslims settled in Germany. 500,000 of them Germany lost from track and probably moved to other countries like UK.
    Firstly, easy on the adjectives. One and a half million Muslims does not mean one and a half million 'radical' Muslims. Your use of that adjective is quite awful and distasteful, implying that all of the one and a half million Muslims hold sympathetic views to Islamic fundamentalists. That is simply not true and an unsubstantiated, deceptive and deceitful claim.

    If we could also just appreciate, for a moment, that most of these refugees are running away from the terrorists in the Middle East, and not actually trying to spread their influence? Not all of the Muslim refugees are radical, but all of the tyrants that made them refugees are.

    Now, I think I speak for everyone when I say that the actions of such refugees are despicable and should rightly be condemned from all sides of the political spectrum. Germany should never have let in so many refugees so quickly.

    At the same time, however, this is somewhat the fault of European inaction. Countries like Italy, Greece and Cyprus have been overwhelmed with the flow of refugees for at least over a year now, with some rates being up to 30,000 refugees arriving a month in some places (I believe) - and the indifference of European governments like the UK has meant minimal funding going to these countries in order to help alleviate the crisis.

    If proper funding had been given sooner, the immigrants could be identified, checked for criminal records and actually prevented from entering the European Union if they were found to have history. Instead, because no funding was given, the flow has been too great for countries to even follow the simple EU directive to fingerprint all arriving refugees. And because countries have been unwilling to take refugees in, the 'border backlog' - if you like - has caused conditions in camps to worsen, meaning even less efficient registration and screening procedures.

    This isn't a justification of their actions, nor is it some kind of way to say that it's not the fault of these people who have taken advantage of the desperate situations in order to cause crime in the European Union. It is, however, a warning against the knee-jerk reaction you seem to be espousing: we have to be pragmatic about the situation, and simply 'closing the borders' will only amplify the problem and spread hate against the EU and the West, which we will in turn pay for in the future. The appropriate response has to be managed immigration of refugees found to be decent and willing to contribute to European society.

    This means European countries each taking in their fair share of EU immigrants and each contributing to the EU border countries facing the huge influxes - so that the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War can be managed in a humanitarian way that tries to limit any crime impact as much as possible and that tries to give the refugees taken in as much support as it is able to, so that they are disincentivised from crime and better able to contribute positively to EU society and the EU economy.

    Germany's approach was bad: it was not managed. But the approach of most other European governments of simple indifference and inaction hasn't been much better.

    So whilst I'm not defending Germany's actions, I do not think this is sufficient reason to leave the European Union. The pragmatic, long-term solution has to be holding up the cards and saying that this crisis is insurmountable by national governments - and has to be taken up by international organisations like the European Union if we are to find a long-term solution to it.

    For balance, refugees present an enormous economic opportunity. Just this morning, I was reading one senior economist arguing that every one euro invested in these refugees would repay itself in two euros within five years - because they present a unique opportunity to diversify and rejuvenate (in the proper meaning of the word) the ageing societies and economies of Europe, thereby relaunching economies that crashed in 2008. Past examples of refugee immigration, like Leicester in 1972, prove that refugee immigration can be hugely beneficial to local and national economies alike.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Does your body insecurities make you avoid PE or exercise?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.